The Indianapolis journal., 1887-12-06


the case of the State of Kansas VS. lei
bold. He agreed, he said. TO SO much OF
the opinion sustains the validity of the act of
Kansas prohibiting the sale OF intoxicauts
which are manufactured in the State after the
passage of the act He was not prepared. how
ever, to say that the prohi iotion of the manu-
facture of such liquors, il earned for exporta-
ton, be sustained. nor that the State
forbid the sale, under proper regulations for the
protection of the health and morals of the
people, of any article which Congress may au-
thorlze to be imported. He was not ready r.
admit that New York any other coast State
can thus defeat an act of Congress Neither
could be concur in the validity of the thirteenth
section OF the Prohibition act of Kansas because
be believed it authorized the destruction of
property without due process OF law. He could
not see upon what principle the Legislature.
after closing brewery, order the destruc-
tion of the liquor. which it admits may be valu-
able for medicinal mechanical purposes: nor
could he why the protection of the morals
of the State required the destruction of bottles
and other utensils, after the liquor had been
EN- mptied from them.
THE VIRGINIA aABEAs CORPUS CASE
A decisi on was also rendered in the Virginia
habeas corpus cases Of Attorney general Ayers
and Commonwealth's Attorneys Scott and Nc
Cabe, who were imprisoned 6y order of Judge
Bond, Of the United States Circuit Court, for
disobedience to q restraining order forbidding
them to bring suits for the collection OF taxes in
cases where tenders have been made By tax
receivable coupons cut from State bonds The
court, in . very long and elaborate opinion by
Justice Matthews, holds that the suit in which
Judge bond issued the restraining order In the
Circuit Court, although nomiEally suit against
individuals is in reality suit against the State
OF Virginia, and such forbidden by the
eleventh amendments to thefederal Constitution;
that the United States Circuit Court had there
fore no authority to entertain such suit; that IN
so doing and IN issuing restraining order to
prevent the officers of the State from
discharging their duties under the
laws of the State, Judge Bond
was acting without constitutional warrant, ana
proceedings under it, including the arrest and
imprisonment of the petitioners, were illegal
and without authority. The court therefore
directs that the petitioners. Attorney general
Ayers and Common wealth's Attorneys Scott and
McCabe, be at once discharged. The opinion.
which is that of the whole court with the ex-
eepflon of Justice Harlan, who dissents, de-
clares that the suit Of Cooper vs. Msrye, out of
which these proceedings arise, was a suit by
subjects of a foreign State against the State of
Virginia To suit of that character the judi
cal power OF the United States cannot, by the
eleventh amendment to the Constitution, be ex-
tended. The object of that suit was TO enjoin
the Attorney general and the Common wealth's
Attorneys from bringing any suits in the
name of the Commonwealth to enforce
tho collection of taxes for the payment of which
coupons originally attached to bonds had been
rendered. To enjoin the officers of the Common
wealth charged with the supervision and man
aeement of legal proceedings in her behalf from
ging suits in her name is nothing less than
DIN the Commonwealth herself. for only
b officers can such suits be instituted and
To-
Matthews says, speaking for the court. '.thas
the eleventh amendment to the Constitution
operates to create an important distinction be-
tween contracts of a State with individuals and
contracts between individual parties In
contracts between State and individuals,
by virtue of the eleventh amendment S
remedy by . snit against the State-the con-
tract is substantially without sanction except
that which arises out of the honor and good faith
of the State itself, and these are not subject to
coercion; although the State may. at the incep-
ton of the contract. have consented to subject
itself TO suit. it may subsequently, withdraw
that consent and resume its original immunity
withou: any violation of tho obligation of its con-
tract in the constitutional sense The very OBJ
jec: and purpose of the eleventh amendment
were to prevent the indignity of subjectng
State to the coercive of judicial trl bunas
at the instance of private parties 1t was thought
to be neither becoming nor convenientthat the
several States, invested with that large residuum
of sovereignty which had not been delegated
to the United States. should be summoned as
defendants to answer the complaints OF private
persons or that the course of their public poll
cy and the administration Of their public affairs
should be subject to control by the mandates OF
judicial tribunals, without their consent and in
favor of individual interests By fair and lib
eral interpre .ation OF the eleventh amendment
it must be held to cover not only suits brought
against State by name, but those also against
its representatives, where the State. though not
named such. is nevertheless the only real
party against which alone relief is asked, and
against which the judgment or decree effectively
operates. But this is not intended in any way ia
infringe upon the principle which justifes suite
against individual defendants, who. under colo4
of the authority of unconstitutional legislation
by the State. are guilty Of personal trespass and
wrongs 1t need not be apprehended that the con-
struction applied to the eleventh amendment in
this case will embarrass obst-uct the execu-
ton of laws OF the United States in cases where
State officers are guilty of acting in violation of
the M because the United States deals with them
as individuals owing obedience to its AUTHORITY
The penalties of disobedience may be
visited upon State officers without
regard to the character in which they assume te
act OF the nature of the exemption they may
plead. Nothing can be in terposed between tho
and the obligation he owes to tho
constitution and laws of the United States. If,
therefore a State officer. under color of Stats
laws, comes into conflict with the superiot
authority and valid laws of the United States,
he is stripped of his representative charactei
and subjected to the consequences Of his
duct The State has power to impart to him
any immunity from responsibility to the su
preme law of the United States"